ReviewClinical and experimental gastroenterology2024
A Systematic Review: Fecal Bacterial Profile in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Analyzed with the GA-Map Dysbiosis Test Based on the 16S rRNA Gene of Bacterial Species or Groups.
Review in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Periodic Changes in the Gut Microbiome in Women with the Mixed Type of Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Gut Microbiota in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Healthy Controls.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Menthacarin, a proprietary combination of peppermint and caraway oil, alters cultured human fecal microbiota composition, resulting in increased SCFA production.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Microbiome Shifts and Their Impact on Gut Physiology in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Assessment of Urinary Dopamine and Serotonin Metabolites in Relation to Dysbiosis Indicators in Patients with Functional Constipation.Nutrients · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is based on symptom-based criteria due to lack of reliable disease-specific biomarkers. Gut microbiota is perturbed in IBS and when comparing different methods used to analyze gut microbiota, the results might be obscured. Therefore, in this systematic review we aimed to investigate the profile of fecal bacterial markers and dysbiosis index (DI) in patients with IBS and IBS subgroups compared to healthy controls (HCs) conducted by the same method (GA-map Dysbiosis Test based on16S rRNA sequencing). Material and Method: We searched PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library for case-control studies comparing fecal gut microbiota analyzed with the GA-map Results: The search identified 28 citations; five articles were included. Most studies evaluated fecal bacterial markers and DI in patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). Results of fecal bacteria profile in IBS and IBS subgroups compared to HCs are inconsistent, however, two studies showed increased levels of Conclusion: This systematic review revealed inconsistent findings in respect to differences in bacterial markers between IBS and IBS subgroups with HCs in studies using the GA-map Dysbiosis Test based on 16S rRNA sequencing. However, the test is quite novel, and few studies have used the method so far. More research comparing fecal microbiota profile differences in IBS and IBS subgroups compared to HCs utilizing the same method of analysis is needed to give us further insight into the gut bacteria profile in IBS and the clinical consequences of intestinal dysbiosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.